Executive Summary
In this appellate decision, the UPC addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the patent's scope while issuing a significant injunction requiring Belkin to recall and destroy infringing products. Crucially, the ruling provided detailed guidance on liability, particularly limiting the personal responsibility of company directors unless they actively participate in or knowingly facilitate infringement.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The decision clarified key legal principles regarding 'offering' (invitatio ad offerendum) under Art. 25 a) EPGÜ, stating that it must be interpreted economically, not strictly legally. Furthermore, the court established strict criteria for holding company directors liable for patent infringement, requiring actions to go beyond typical professional duties and involve knowledge of illegality.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Luxembourg (LU), this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsDexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidential information, the UPC Local Division Munich balanced the need for parties' effective legal representation against the protection of trade secrets. The Court granted the Defendants' request to classify certain internal documents as strictly confidential, limiting access only to named representatives and employees. This ruling reinforces the principle that while lawyers require necessary access, accountability must be maintained by clearly defining who is responsible for maintaining confidentiality.
Malikie Innovations Ltd.vsNintendo of Europe SE
This preliminary order addressed a procedural issue in an infringement action brought by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo of Europe SE regarding patent EP2579551. The Claimant sought to correct the name of Defendant 1 from 'Nintendo of Europe AG' to 'Nintendo of Europe SE', as the latter succeeded the former. The Court granted this rectification, confirming that no unreasonable prejudice was caused because the successor company had taken over all assets and business premises.
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for infringing European Patent EP 2 028 981, which covers a juice extractor. The court found infringement and issued significant remedies, including orders to destroy and recall the infringing products in various EU member states. Beyond the core finding of infringement, the decision provided important guidance on how intertemporal law applies within the UPC framework, particularly concerning acts that span before and after the UPCA's entry into force.
DexCom, Inc.vsAbbott Laboratories and associated companies (jointly referred to as 'the Abbott companies')
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted DexCom, Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiaries. Concurrently, the Abbott companies agreed to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. This mutual withdrawal resulted in the closure of the proceedings, meaning the patent EP 3 435 866 remains fully in force across all relevant territories. The decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding withdrawals during appeal.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.vsAiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order concerning confidential information in an infringement and revocation action, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed access rights to sensitive financial data. The Court clarified that parties must provide specific, concrete reasons when objecting to or requesting access to confidential information. It ultimately granted access to certain independent consultants involved in patent matters while rejecting a request for another party, emphasizing the strict adherence required under confidentiality rules.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.